V&V: Second Review, Also "Somewhat Recommended".

Tracking reviews of ones show is such a surreal experience. Improv is, all too often, un-reviewed. So, it's a new experience for me to read these written reactions of the show that we're working on. Preserved online. So strange. What an odd experience.

Anyways, the second review is from Centerstage Chicago. You can read it here.

And this, I think, is a more accurate view of the show. Less burdened by the years of experience that Tom Williams struggled with. This reviewer, Anna Pulley, was a little more open to the experience. And it sounds like she had more fun than Tom did.

I won't bother to overly analyze Anna's review. She did a fine job of re-counting the evening that she experienced. She felt empowered by the stripteases, which is nice. And she thought that the other numbers were fun and a very silly. And that's all we really ask of the audience. One could certainly populate a marketing poster for the show with a variety of complimentary adjectives from her review.

"congenial nuttiness"

"plenty of bawdy humor"

"Vaudeville and Vixens" is a blast from the past"

and

"true to the stylings of Buster Keaton and Abbott and Costello"

Anna's chief complaint with the show? No modern reflections on the human condition. No modern reflection on the artform of burlesque, either. And you know what? She's absolutely right. It's a tribute piece, taken directly from text that is over 100 years old. There was no effort then to be more than what it was, a series of rib-tickling knee-slappers that flew at you so fast, that you don't have time to think, much less catch the stinkers. So, I'll give her that one as a freebie. It's not a post-modern piece. It's most definitely a retro piece.

One thing that Anna didn't catch, and I don't fault her for this, there's no way that she could possibly know this. 80% of what I am saying as the Master of Ceremonies, out there is improvised, on-the-spot. Sure, I have a loose structure, in that I usually know what the next number is and I eventually have to introduce it, but the rest of the time that I'm out there, I'm on my own, entirely. Some jokes killed in past shows and they're still around. But the interactions with the audience are real. The bits and jokes and asides are whatever I've just thought of or something that occurred to me in the shower, that morning. The bits that she references, teaching catcalls to the audience, was improvised on the spot, the night before and was polished up for her show. (The cast loved how responsive it got the audience. So we kept it.) And if to Anna's trained eye, they look like written interstitials that we planned out, wrote, polished and memorized, then I did my job.

Even if she couldn't possibly know that.

Or maybe she'll come back and see the show again and notice the additions, changes and freshness of the produce that I'm sellin' up there. That would be pretty cool.

So, we're "Somewhat Recommended" by another online critic. Although, to be fair, this one had much less of a stinkeye to give us.

Cheers,
The Master of Ceremonies...



FOR THOSE PLAYING ALONG AT HOME, HERE'S THE REVIEW WRAPUP FOR THE SHOW:
www.chicagocritics.com - Somewhat Recommended
www,centerstagechicago.com - Somewhat Recommended.
I'LL UPDATE THIS LIST, AS MORE REVIEWS COME IN!
(Good or bad!)